brighteyed,
This is a very emotionally charged issue, and I think that
maybe talking about it
doesn't help, at least not at this point in our societal process of healing. At a friend's funeral, you don't walk up to the grieving widow and tell her "well, Joe was a great guy, but it is time to move on. We all get dealt crappy hands now and then, but the best thing to do is to just dust yourself off and move on withyour life. Here's the number for my accountant, he'll help you with the finances. Hey, you need to think about getting a job--Joe played the ponies a lot, and spent a lot on his mistress, I'm sure he didn't leave you much." No. That widow wants and needs to be told what a great guy Joe was, and she needs everyone to huddle around her and make comforting noises about the tragedy of Joe's death, and what a nasty blow it is, and how she's holding up well despite everything. I think that's where we are in our national dialogue on this issue.
But, as I think we all recognize, the sooner Joe's widow
does dust herself off and move on, the more progress she'll make. And if she locks herself in the house surrounded by pictures of Joe and waits for others to bring her dinner for 50-60 years, it will be natural for them to either view her as helpless or start resenting the chore of preparing food for her.
More evidence that we're not ready to have this discussion: My comments were called "racist" with the implication that
I was a racist. This is absolutely not true. A racist believes in the superiority of particular races over others (and, by extension, the inferiority of some races). I absolutely reject that, have never written it, and I strongly resent the implication, even if it just stems from sloppy thinking and ignorance rather than malice. Also, a racist is interested in perpetuating racial distinctions and racial preferences. My view is exactly the opposite, as should be clear from what I've written. Others prefer to retain the labels and distinctons--draw your own conclusions.
donheff said:
Sam - after reading this whole thread, I get the impression that you are basically saying that life for the poor in today's America is better than life for the poor in today's Africa. Thus it is the better place to be born. While the point is debatable it certainly isn't reprehensible.
Yep, that is pretty much my point and how ths whole thing started . . .
donheff said:
The problem is that you do a Colter and wrap it up with an assertion that the descendants of slaves are better off for it than those of the left behind. But this second point sounds (I realize you don't intend it this way) like an endorsement of the past.
Right, it was abolutely not an endorsement. And, I think the role of "intent" is important to mention: Those slave traders had no intention of benefitting those slaves--they intended to use them as animals, to kill as many as needed, and to exploit them in the most brutal sense. Sometimes their future "owners" were less brutal, but frequently not. So, there was no intent to help these people. And they intended to enslave their future generations, so there was no intent to help them, either. But, as it has tured out (and only with benefit of hindsight is it possible to see this), their descendents are better off than if they had remained in Africa. Of course, the whole idea of "their descendents" only makes sense as a group, since these same offspring wouldn't have been born to these same parents in Ghana, since the individuals would not have met, etc.
But, you are right-- word choice and the way things are presented are important in this very sensitive area. And, I can well understand why people choose not to discuss these things in their daily lives--too easy to miscommunicate with disasterous impact on relationships and careers.